APHC010547652025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Friday, the seventh day of August, two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Contempt Case No.3011 of 2025 Between: Y Surendra, S/o. E. Pedha Venkataiah, Aged about 43 years, Oc: Agriculturist, R/o. D. No.2 Tirupati district. and 1. B. Rajshekar, Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Market Committee, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur. 2. Sri Vijaya Sunitha, Director, Agriculture Market Committee, Tadepalli, Guntur district. Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Harinath Reddy Soma Counsel for the contemnor 1. BH RAMA KRISHNA NAIK The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Friday, the seventh day of August, two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Contempt Case No.3011 of 2025 , S/o. E. Pedha Venkataiah, Aged about 43 years, Oc: Agriculturist, R/o. D. No.2-25, Kovanur village, K.V.B. Puram mandal, ….Petitioner , Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Market Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur. Sri Vijaya Sunitha, Director, Agriculture Market Committee, Tadepalli, Guntur district. …Respondents etitioner: Harinath Reddy Soma ontemnors: BH RAMA KRISHNA NAIK The Court made the following: [3311] Friday, the seventh day of August, two thousand and twenty six , S/o. E. Pedha Venkataiah, Aged about 43 years, Oc: 25, Kovanur village, K.V.B. Puram mandal, ….Petitioner , Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Market Sri Vijaya Sunitha, Director, Agriculture Market Committee, …Respondents 2 BSB, J C.C.No.3011 of 2025 ORDER: The contempt case is filed to punish the respondents for willful disobedience and disrespect of the order, dated 24.09.2025, in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No.26669 of 2025. 2. The case of the petitioner, briefly stated, is as follows: a. The petitioner filed a writ petition, W.P.No.26669 of 2025, challenging the action of the respondents therein in finalizing the list of candidates for the constitution of Agricultural Market Committee, B.N. Kandriga, without following the rule of reservation (‘R.O.R.’) notified by the order in AGCO5 -AMC / 23 / 2024-JMA, dated Nil.01.2025, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, with a consequential prayer to set aside the selection of Smt. M. Jyothi Sudhakar Naidu / respondent No.5 therein as Chairman of B.N. Kandriga Agricultural Market Committee. The petitioner belongs to S.C. community and is a permanent resident of Kovanur Village. b. The state government took a decision to constitute Agricultural Market Committees (A.M.Cs.) in the State of Andhra Pradesh to fill up the posts of Chairman of the committees. Accordingly, the government issued G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 27.09.2019, to provide reservation. As per Rule 3, the unit of reservation for the office of the Chairman is provided. All the committees functioning under the control of the State of Andhra Pradesh are treated as Unit for the purpose of reservation in the nominated posts of Chairpersons. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Agriculture and Cooperation (MKTG-I) Department issued a government memo, dated 06.12.2024, treating the district as unit for implementation of R.O.R. in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 27.09.2019. Following 3 BSB, J C.C.No.3011 of 2025 the memo and the rules, the respondent No.3 issued the order in AGCOS-AMC/23/2024-JMA, dated Nil-01-2025, providing the R.O.R. for the post of Chairman in the A.M.Cs. of Tirupati district for a fixed period of 2 years, as follows:- Sl. No. Name of the Assembly constituency Name of the A.M.C Rule of Reservation of Chairman’s post 1. Srikalahasti 1. Srikalahasti OC- (W) 2. Sullurpeta 2. Sullurupeta 3. Naidupeta BC –(W) OC –(G) 3. Guduru 4. Guduru 5. Vakadu OC –(G) SC- (W) 4. Chandragiri 6. Pakala 7. Tiruchanur 8. Chandragiri SC- (W) OC –(G) BC –(W) 5. Satyaveedu 9. B.N. Kandriga 10. Nagalapuram ST – (G) OC – (W) 6. Nagari 11. Puttur BC – (G) 7. Venkatagiri 12. Venkatagiri OC – (W) c. However, on 18.09.2025, the respondent No.1 herein issued a memo No. AGC01-MKTG /117 / 2025 - Mktg.I, dated 18.09.2025, directing the respondent No.2 to furnish the proposals for the constitution of certain A.M.Cs. to the government for taking further action. On 19.09.2025, the respondent No.2 issued a memo No.AGC05- 11 / 106 / 2024, dated 19.09.2025, instructing the Secretary, B. N. KandrIga A.M.C., to furnish the proposals for the constitution of A.M.C. immediately for onward submission to the government for further action. Contrary to the R.O.R. notified by the District Collector, Tirupati, the selection of the candidates was pre-determined and collusive as per whims and fancies. Smt. M. Jyothi Sudhakar Naidu, who belongs to 4 BSB, J C.C.No.3011 of 2025 forward community has been proposed as a candidate for the Chairman A.M.C., B.N. Kandriga, which was reserved for S.T. (General). Hence, the petitioner filed a writ petition, W.P.No.26669 of 2025. This Court, vide order, dated 24.09.2025, in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in writ petition directed as follows: “This application is filed to direct the respondents not to finalize the candidature of the respondent No.5 as Chairman to the Agricultural Marketing Committee, B. N. Kandriga village and mandal, Tirupathi district, pending disposal of the writ petition. Heard Sri T.D. Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. As per the instructions to the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture, the post of Chairman, Agricultural Marketing Committee, B. N. Kandriga village and mandal, Tirupathi district , has not been filled so far. Hence, status quo as on today is directed to be maintained.” d. In spite of the above order, the respondent No.1, in violation of the interim order, constituted the committee appointing Smt. M. Jyothi Sudhakar Naidu, as the chairman of the A.M.C., B.N. Kandriga, and issued G.O. Rt. No. 855, dated 29.09.2025. The interim order was dispatched to the respondents through a special messenger. The said G.O. was issued despite knowledge of the interim order of this Court. Hence, this contempt case was filed. 3. The respondent No.1 filed a counter with the averments, stated briefly, as follows:- 5 BSB, J C.C.No.3011 of 2025 a. It is true that the petitioner got the above said interim order. However, every market committee shall have a Chairman (nominated from among its members) specified in Clause (i) of sub-section (1) and Vice-chairman (nominated from among its members) specified in Clause (i) or Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) by the government in consultation with the Director of Marketing. Section 5(3) of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (in short, ‘the Act, 1966’), the members of the committee shall hold the office during the pleasure of the government. As per Section 33 (1) of the Act, 1966, the government may either generally or specifically for any notified area or areas, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act and as per Section 33(2)(ii) of the Act, 1966, the appointment of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of a market committee and their term of office are regulated. The government, vide G.O. Ms. No.77, dated 27.09.2019, issued orders regarding 50% reservation to B.Cs, S.Ts., S.Cs and minorities. According to the said G.O., B.Cs and minorities have 29%, S.Cs. have 15% and S.Ts. have 6% respectively out of total of 50% as reservation. The government, vide memo No. AG01 – MKTG / 283 / 2024 Mktg.I, dated 06.12.2024, issued orders making ‘district as a unit’ for implementation of the R.O.R. and the District Collector shall fix the R.O.R. duly ensuring the adequacy of reserved candidates in terms of G.O. Ms. No.77, dated 27.09.2019. The District Collector, Tirupati district, fixed the R.O.R. to twelve (12) Agricultural market committees within that district and the post of Chairman, A.M.C., B. N. Kandriga is earmarked to S.T. (General). The list of the panel members was received from the Director of Agricultural Marketing, vide e-file No.AGC05-11021 / 208 / 2025-Statutory SEC-MRKT, dated 25.09.2025, for the nominated posts of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and members in respect of A.M.C., B. N. Kandriga. 6 BSB, J C.C.No.3011 of 2025 b. The panel of proposals which was received from the Director of Agricultural Marketing, A.P., Guntur, proposed the name of Smt. M. Jyothi Sudhakar Naidu (O.C.) as the Chairman of Agricultural Market Committee, B. N. Kandriga and the R.O.R. fixed by the Collector and District Magistrate for Chairman, B.N. Kandriga is S.T. (General). c. The government issued G.O. Rt. No. 855, Agriculture & Cooperation (Mktg.II) Department, dated 29.09.2025. Accordingly, the Chairman, B.N. Kandriga, assumed the charge in the afternoon of 02.10.2025. A copy of the interim order, dated 24.09.2025, was received on 17.10.2025. The government, vide memo. No. AGC01- MKTG / 283 / 2024 Mktg.I) Department, dated 10.10.2025, issued modified orders, duly considering “State as a Unit” for determining the reservations to A.M.Cs instead of “District as a unit”. There are 218 A.M.Cs in the State. The percentage of category wise for the 218 A.M.Cs. as per G.O.Ms. No.77, dated 27.09.2019, is as follows: Category Percentage (%) Total number of A.M.Cs OC 218 x 50 109 BC 218 x 29 63 SC 218 x 15 33 ST 218 x 6 13 Out of 218 A.M.Cs., 200 A.M.Cs., were constituted. The remaining 18 number of A.M.Cs., have yet to be constituted. Thus, reservation to S.T. categories @ 6% will be filled taking “State as a Unit”. Therefore, under above circumstances, the contempt case may be closed. 4. Though the respondent No.2 filed a separate counter affidavit, it is also on the same lines as in the counter affidavit of the respondent 7 BSB, J C.C.No.3011 of 2025 No.1. This respondent stated that the copy of the interim order was received on 17.10.2025. 5. As on the date of passing of the order, i.e., 24.09.2025, the memo vide AGCO05-11 / 106 / 2024, dated 19.09.2025, was in force. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the appointment of Smt. M. Jyothi Sudhakar Naidu contrary to the memo cannot be justified by a subsequent procedure adopted even by referring to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (50% Reservation to BCs, SCs, STs and Minorities in all the nominated posts) Act, 2019. The issue is whether the interim order passed by this Court was violated with the knowledge of the order. The respondents stated that copy of the order was received subsequent to the appointment of Smt. M. Jyothi Sudhakar Naidu. Knowledge of the order before or on the date of appointment was not denied. It is the common practice that any interim order would be informed to the concerned through a liaison officer attached to Court before receipt of the copy of the original order. Irrespective of that, even after receipt of the copy of the order, the respondents have not bothered to comply the direction to maintain status quo as on the date of passing of the order as it can be implemented by suspending the appointment made contrary to the interim order by then in force. If the interim order was to be challenged, necessary procedure shall be followed. Therefore, there is deliberate disobedience of the order, dated 24.09.2025. Until the interim order is merged with the final order or set aside or vacated, the order remains in force and shall be implemented. It is not the contention of the respondents that the order was not in force as on the date of appointment or on the dates allegedly they received certified copy of the order and even thereafter for sometime till disposal 8 BSB, J C.C.No.3011 of 2025 of the main writ petition. Therefore, as clear and deliberate violation of the order is established, the contemnors are liable for punishment. 6. In the result, the contempt case is allowed and the contemnors / respondents 1 and 2 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each on or before 24.08.2026. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt. 07.08.2026 RAR Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No